Agnostic.com

14 4

Hiroshima. August 6, 1945, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure.

Never again. No Nukes.

KateZilla 7 Aug 6
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

When I was at the Hiroshima museum around 2005, there were some Japanese school girls there. They were unaware of a place called Pearl Harbor or it's significance. Had we not dropped the bombs, probably a million more would be dead including many Americans.

This is real "Trump Think", kill a couple of hundred thousand Japanese to "save" a hundred thousand Americans . This is the logic of a nation war driven economy.

1

Curtis LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo was as unnecessary as the later two war crimes. The people killed by it were no more or less dead, qualitatively. Dead is dead. A stabbing murder isn't any less final or lethal than an H-bomb. What frightens people about nukes is the knowledge that it will be all inclusive and not just limited to 'those other folks over yonder'.

There is no humane way to fight wars. The idea of rules being able to civilize slaying of one people by another is absurd; slaughter cannot become something dignified because it is carried out with a set of rules.

If terrorism is murder of civilians so as to reduce willingness to fight or to save lives of combatants, how does it suddenly become dignified when we not only do it but admit to the motives? Japanese civilians became more acceptable as helpless sacrifices than the loss of our combatants doing a mop-up operation on an already defeated enemy.

WE dropped leaflets to warn them. It is as laughable as the Israeli IDF calling people in a building in Gaza by phone or signaling them with a small explosion to get out now and two to three minutes later incinerating them... What dignity and humanity we show with rules. How much less dead they are because of our touching regard for being civilized about methods.

0

Idk if commenters are simply ignorant or blinded by nationalist fervor. There was neither a need nor benefit to dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This rank propaganda was debunked by Truman’s Chief of Staff, the Commanding General of US Army Air Forces and the Naval Commander of the Pacific Fleet.

If you care enough to commit to a position, at least do some research.

Marz Level 7 Aug 7, 2018

Lighten up Francis.

invading japan would have cost 1,000s of Allied lives. We were fighting holed-up Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima for months after the war

I'm 84 years old and remember WWII well. The death toll of the A-bomb was payback -- with interest -- for the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor.

1

There are good arguments for and against the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many on both sides made by prominent folks who were actually there. Certainly it was a terrifying chapter in human history. But I wasn't there and I'm not much for Monday morning quarterbacking. I believe that the only thing for certain is that those bombs saved U.S. soldiers' lives...maybe a relative few if we'd been able to force a surrender by carpet bombing...maybe hundreds of thousands if we'd been forced into a land invasion. We'll never know for certain.

So how about a few modern day hypotheticals? Suppose one of our modern allies - say for example Germany, Great Britain or Australia - was being invaded by overwhelming ground forces. And we were seeing atrocities such as those which continued to be inflicted by the Japanese right up to their surrender in WWII. Would the use of tactical nukes be justified?

What if some nutbag terrorist somewhere in the Middle East got their hands on a nuclear missile and had it pointed at us? And we couldn't pinpoint which cave he was holed up in? Would it be justified to nuke an area just to be sure we got it before it got us?

Here's a good one. What if we found out said nutbag had already gotten a really big bomb into some U.S. suburb. And we could only determine within a few miles where it actually was. Would a smaller bomb be better or worse than taking a chance that the big bomb would be successfully deployed? Would a small bomb that takes out half of The Bronx be better than possibly a big one that takes out everything from the Washington Bridge to JFK?

Of course, these are all impossible questions...and we all hope never to be faced with such a situation.

But sometimes the lesser of two evils is the only choice there is.

We have no allies...Trump has taken care of that.

1

Hindsight has shown it was unnecessary and was dropped as a message to Russia. That being said, the Japanese do not own their history. My brother has lived in Japan for 20 years and while he loves it, this is one area that drives him nuts! They do not teach their children their history.

Without proof, merely conjecture that it was a message to Russia. Do you have proof?

My question is whose hindsight? Also, the Germans did not teach the next generation about what happened during that period. It took the American series "the Holocaust" to make the Germans realize their mistake.

In reading documents historians realized Truman and his team were aware the Japanese were close to surrender. They could have waited, they chose not to. On my way to work so do not have the links to info. Will post later if interested.

@GreatNani The Japanese had sent an envoy to Russia to discuss the possibility of a conditional surrender (which would leave their ruling echelon intact), rather than the unconditional surrender we were intent on. Many historians believe this was a feint to try and keep Russia from declaring war on them, thereby allowing them to move large numbers of japanese troop reinforcements from China back to the home island in anticipation of a ground invasion by mostly U.S. soldiers supported by our allies in U.K, Canada and Australia. The casualties for such an invasion were estimated to be at a minimum 250k and potentially as high as 1 million soldiers.

I sympathize and agree with any sentiment that recognizes the horror that nuclear weapons represent. But i also recognize that world events are rarely as simple or straightforward as some people make them out to be.

2

The bombing raid code named Operation Meetinghouse was conducted on the night 9/10th March 1945 and killed an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 people. It left a 16 square mile area of Tokyo devistated. An estimated 1.000.000 homeless.

Never heard anyone complain about that.

Interesting. This is actually the first I've heard of it.
[en.wikipedia.org]

1

As tragic as they were, the atomic bombings were a lesser of two evils. Millions more would have died if we had invaded.

And you had to invade?
General Eisenhower didn't agree that the nukes were necessary

1

Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack....no warning. (December 7, 1941)
The total number of military personnel killed was 2,335, including 2,008 navy personnel, 109 marines, and 218 army. Added to this were 68 civilians, making the total 2403 people dead. 1,177 were from the USS Arizona.

We weren't at war with Japan until they did this. All their deaths are a result of the decisions made by their military and government leaders.

Don't attack the biggest kid on the playground and then bitch when he beats you to a pulp.

What you have written is absolutely disgusting. Even going by your own logic, for approx 10,000 US lives, the cost is a few hundreds of thousands of Japanese? Genocide to justify a genocide! Let us not forget that majority of lives lost in Japan were civilian as opposed to Pearl Harbor. What Japan did in Pearl Harbor and what USA did in Japan were both monumentally barbaric. "playground", "biggest kid", "bitching"? It is clear that you can empathize neither with the American soldiers nor with the Japanese dead. Your argument suggests that this is how conflicts should be resolved. What a horrible thought!

@Spongebob so, by your logic, the US should have "turned the other cheek"? Also, you think no action should have been taken because the majority of lives lost in Pearl Harbor were military? Yet, you say I can't empathize with the American soldiers? What the fuck are you smoking? LOL You may also want to look up the literary device called "simile" as it will help you understand what I wrote. Finally, as someone who has put on a uniform, let me guess....you haven't. Typical millennial.

1

Lest a repeat of fanatical fascists fighting to the last 13 year old as in Berlin, an assault on Japan would have been too great a cost in allied lives. It took 2 atomic bombs. Not one but 2. That is how fanatical fascists can be. I for one lament its use & that it was my country that had to use 2. Celebrate not the burning of babies.

You are correct. Despite two Abombs, there was a faction of young officers who tried a coup to stop the surrender

@iamjc I thought I said that.

2

2 words.... Pearl. Harbor.

RIGHT! Ever been to Hiroshima? They have a nice memorial garden, remembering the dead. There's a plaque which says that "Japan is a peaceful nation" and that they were ''attacked'' by the US. Guess nobody remembers that ''day of infamy." Guess nobody remembers Bataan and the horrendous death marches in Borneo and Australia, etc.

We can NEVER go back and criticize decisions made during a war. Some were awful...some saved lives.

@PerbeMayhaps It's there! Friends and I saw it!

2

August is hot enough as is.

2

Many of the principal military officials such as Admiral Leahy and Eisenhower were of the opinion that it was totally unnecessary.

I wonder how much facts matter to those who’ve already justified bombing civilians.

0

I have heard the arguments that Japan would never have surrendered and more may have died.

But I still think the first bomb should have not been dropped on a population center.

The power could have been easily shown on a forest or something else.

Then say...."We've got another one. Care to talk?"

Also, the fire bombing of Dresden killed more civilians as I recall.

@PalacinkyPDX Also interesting that Japan and Germany are both solid allies now and long have been.

@PalacinkyPDX Buffoon Baboon.

Pfortzheim was a city in Germany without any military purpose until someone decided that it could be used to experiment with modes of bombing strikes leading to the most devastation and later use the ideas when bombing other cities like Dresden and Hamburg. hence Pfortzheim became a military target where thousands of civilians were killed in experimental bombing. Also notice that the US didn't use the atomic bomb on Germany.

0

USA! USA! USA!!!!
Unfortunately, I believe that with the proliferation of the technology, I'll live to see a limited nuclear war take place.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:149501
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.